CHAMAN LAL SHARMA Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER UBDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Chaman Lal Sharma, the complainant challenging order of District Forum, Gurdaspur dated July 9, 1996 whereby a direction was given to the opposite parties Superintending Engineer, UBDC and others to refund a sum of Rs.410/- alongwith interest @ 18% p. a. from February 13, 1993 till payment. In appeal, enhancement of the amount was asked for towards damages. After hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that even the relief granted could not be allowed in the complaint as the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and objections in this respect was taken in the reply filed by the opposite parties.

(2.) Facts are brief and are not in dispute. The opposite parties, who are officers/officials of UBDC held auction for lease of a plot on November 18, 1992. The highest bid given by Chaman Lal Sharma, the complainant was at Rs.410/- per month. The same was accepted, however, subsequently cancelled on February 13, 1993. This led Chaman Lal Sharma to file the complaint claiming damages on account of loss suffered. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was stated to be the loss suffered.

(3.) A lessee of land or immovable property cannot be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. By taking the property on lease, it cannot be said that the lessee had hired the services of the lessor on consideration. Under the lease, the lessee get permission or right to use the property of course on payment of rent. Qua that the lessee may have certain rights which can be enforced in the Court of Law. But a lessee does not acquire the status of a hirer of the service of the lessor. The element of rendering service in such like matters is lacking. A consumer as defined under the Act, can be a person who purchases goods or hires services of the opposite party for consideration. Present cannot be treated as a case of purchase of goods or hiring service of any person. Since there is no appeal by the opposite parties, the order of the District Forum granting some relief cannot be set aside. Be that as it may, no further relief to the complainant-appellant can be allowed in the appeal, which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The complainant, if so advised may approach the Civil Court for the relief, if any due on account of breach of contract.